Is the Condonation Doctrine unconstitutional?

Is the Condonation Doctrine unconstitutional?

And should the Supreme Court revisit its decision in G.R. L-11959?

By Yvonne

Much has been said about the condonation doctrine. This subject has come into public awareness and intense scrutiny when Makati Mayor Jejomar Binay, Jr. invoked the condonation doctrine to stop his suspension as ordered by the Ombudsman in connection with the alleged overpricing of the Makati City Hall Parking building.

The Supreme Court first introduced the condonation doctrine into our jurisprudence in the case of then Mayor Arturo Pascual vs. The Provincial Board of Nueva Ecija, G.R. L-11959, in 1959. The Court stated that a reelected public official cannot be removed from his position for an administrative misconduct committed during his prior term because his reelection assumes that the people have forgiven him, and removing him from office overrules the will of the people.

The word condonation has the same meaning as pardon, forgiveness, and clemency. In this essay I will use the word condonation, or pardon, for textual simplicity. I posit the following:

The condonation doctrine appears to be unconstitutional

1. It usurps the constitutional power of the President to grant pardon in administrative cases in the Executive branch of government.

2. It contravenes Article II, Section 27 of the 1987 Constitution mandating that “the State shall maintain honesty and integrity in the public service and take positive and effective measures against graft and corruption.”

The Supreme Court should revisit its decision on G.R. L-11959

I. The Court failed to recognize in its 1959 decision the constitutional the power of the President to grant pardon in administrative cases, whose power is provided for as early as in the 1935 Constitution.

II. It applied the condonation doctrine in a case where the prerequisite of prior conviction did not exist in the case.

III. It used a weak interpretation of the condonation doctrine that is inconsistent with our stated national principles and policies.

THE CONDONATION DOCTRINE SHOULD BE DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL

1. It usurps the constitutional power of the President to grant pardon in administrative cases.

An underlying theory in the condonation doctrine is that “when the people have elected a man to office, it must be assumed that they did this with knowledge of his life and character, and that they disregarded or forgave his faults or misconduct, if he had been guilty of any.”

But this underlying theory is contrary to the constitutional provision that the President, not any parochial or local electorate, has the power to grant pardon in administrative cases. Both the 1935 and 1987 Constitutions are clear: the power to grant pardon, under the Executive Branch of government, is given to the President.

Article VII, Section 10 (6) of the 1935 Constitution states: “The President shall have the power to grant reprieves, commutations, and pardons, and remit fines and forfeitures, after conviction, for all expenses except in case of impeachment, upon such conditions and with such restrictions and limitations as he may deem proper to impose.”

Article VII, Section 19 of the 1987 Constitution states that “except in cases of impeachment, or as otherwise provided in this Constitution, the President may grant reprieves, commutations and pardons, and remit fines and forfeitures, after conviction by final judgment.”

It was believed previously that the power of the President to grant pardon was limited to criminal cases, and it is for this erroneous belief that the condonation doctrine in administrative cases was introduced into our jurisprudence in 1959. But the power of the President to grant pardon in both criminal and administrative cases has been affirmed by the Supreme Court.

In Llamas vs. Orbos, G.R. 99031, on October 15, 1991, the Supreme Court ruled that the President has the power also to grant pardon in administrative cases.

The Court declared: “It is Our considered view that if the President can grant reprieves, commutations and pardons, and remit fines and forfeitures in criminal cases, with much more reason can she grant executive clemency in administrative cases, which are clearly less serious than criminal offenses.” “A number of laws impliedly or expressly recognize or support the exercise of the executive clemency in administrative cases.” (Underlining is mine.)

The ruling in Llamas vs. Orbos recognizing the constitutional power of the President to grant pardon in administrative cases renders the condonation doctrine unconstitutional because the doctrine erroneously grants that power to a parochial or local electorate.

Also, the condonation doctrine is badly flawed in that it assumes that pardon is granted with reelection. A rule of law should be based on facts, not on a wrong assumption – more on this later.

Another serious flaw of the condonation doctrine is its assertion that “the Court should never remove a public officer for acts done prior to his present term of office” because “to do otherwise would be to deprive the people of their right to elect their officers.” This assertion is flawed because of the rule on succession.

When the people exercise their right to elect their government officials they do so with the knowledge of the rule on succession of elective officials. Thus when they elect a mayor they also elect a vice-mayor with the knowledge and consent that the vice-mayor may succeed the mayor in the event that he is suspended, removed, or incapacitated. In the event that a mayor is suspended, the will of the people is not violated because they also elected a vice-mayor who may assume the office of the mayor in such eventuality.

2. It violates Article II, Section 27 of the 1987 Constitution mandating that “the State shall maintain honesty and integrity in the public service and take positive and effective measures against graft and corruption.”

A conviction of administrative misconduct puts into question the honesty, damages the reputation, and impairs the performance, of a public official. His continued stay in office, or preventing his suspension, as allowed in the condonation doctrine, is contrary to a positive and effective measure against graft and corruption.

The condonation doctrine has a dilatory effect in the prosecution of graft and corruption as is very evident in the present case of Ombudsman versus Court of Appeals that is being heard at the Supreme Court.

Indeed, unscrupulous politicians have used the condonation doctrine as a legal shield to subvert the prosecution of graft and corruption.

THE COURT SHOULD REVISIT ITS DECISION IN G.R. L-11959

I. When the issue of administrative pardon was raised in Arturo Pascual vs. Provincial Board of Nueva Ecija, in G.R. L-11959, in 1959, the Court failed to recognize the constitutional power of the President to grant pardon in administrative cases.

It was not until Llamas vs. Orbos, G.R. 99031, on October 15, 1991 that the Court finally recognized that presidential power. Yet the constitutional provisions from which the Court based its decision are present in both the 1935 and 1987 Constitutions.

The failure of the Court to recognize that presidential power of pardon resulted in its invocation of the condonation doctrine in addressing the issue of pardon in administrative cases.

II. The Court used the condonation doctrine in the absence of prior conviction.

Using the condonation doctrine from American jurisprudence, the Supreme Court quoted as follows:

“The Court should never remove a public officer for acts done prior to his present term of office. To do otherwise would be to deprive the people of their right to elect their officers. When the people have elected a man to office, it must be assumed that they did this with knowledge of his life and character, and that they disregarded or forgave his faults or misconduct, if he had been guilty of any. It is not for the court, by reason of such faults or misconduct to practically overrule the will of the people.”

The key element in the condonation doctrine is prior conviction – “if he had been guilty of any.”

It has been a widely held judicial principle that pardon can be given only after final conviction.

This principle is consistent with the language of both the 1935 and 1987 Constitutions declaring that conviction is a prerequisite of pardon.

Whereas the 1935 Constitution referred only to pardon “after conviction”, the 1987 Constitution clarified it to “after conviction by final judgment.” In Llamas vs. Orbos, the Court also emphasized that pardon shall be granted “after conviction by final judgment.” This makes more sense because a preliminary conviction can be appealed and can be reversed on appeal.

In Arturo Pascual vs. Provincial Board of Nueva Ecija the Court erred by using the condonation doctrine although Arturo Pascual had not yet been convicted by final judgment.

III. The Court used a weak interpretation of the condonation doctrine that is inconsistent with our stated national principles and policies.

The Supreme Court, itself, appeared to be uncertain on the condonation doctrine when it wrote:

“We now come to the main issue of the controversy — the legality of disciplining an elective municipal official for a wrongful act committed by him during his immediately preceding term of office.”

“In the absence of any precedent in this jurisdiction, we have resorted to American authorities. We found that cases on the matter are conflicting due in part, probably, to differences in statutes and constitutional provisions, and also, in part, to a divergence of views with respect to the question of whether the subsequent election or appointment condones the prior misconduct. “

The court noted that there was no “precedent”, that “cases on the matter are conflicting”, and that there was a “divergence of views”. Yet the Court adapted a view with dubious character as opposed to a view that is on stronger ground and is more consistent with our national principles and policies.

An analysis of the condonation doctrine made by the Louisiana Law Review, Volume 4, Number 1, November 1941, states:

“A(n) issue presented was whether or not a public official might be removed for misconduct in a prior term. Although the decisions in other states conflict on this question,Louisiana has consistently held to the view which permits removal for misconduct in a prior term.Some courts reason that by re-election the public has condoned the fault of the official, whether such shortcomings were known or not;while other tribunals reach the dubious conclusion that permitting a public official to be removed for his misconduct in a prior term is depriving the citizenry of its sacred right of selecting its own officials;and still other courts treat each term as a separate entity in itself, permitting removal only for acts done within the current term.”

“The most serious objection to the theory of condonation of past offenses lies in the ever present possibility that re-election may not constitute condonation either because the facts were not known or because the election was corrupt.”

“The rules adopted in the Jones case provide a definite check against misconduct by public officials at all times since they throw open to investigation personal as well as official misconduct and refuse to recognize any distinction with respect to the time when the misconduct took place.” [Stanley v. Jones, 2 So. (2d) 45 (La. 1941)]

The obvious divergent and conflicting judicial interpretations of the condonation doctrine require that its interpretation must be reconciled with our national principles and policies, and not be based on “dubious conclusions”.

The will of a parochial electorate is not an expression of the national will

A parochial electorate, such as the electorate of Makati, represents a parochial or local interest. Its will expressed in the ballot box is not an expression of the national will; it cannot grant pardon to a misconduct committed against a national administrative law, or against the state’s declaration of principles and policies.

It is precisely for this fundamental reason why the power to pardon is the exclusive province of the national leadership whose mandate and power emanate from the national populace. In the case of the Executive Branch of government that power is given to the President, with some exceptions as stated in the Constitution.

The condonation doctrine is invalid in a strong multi-party electoral system

The condonation doctrine has its history deeply rooted in American politics dominated by a two-party system. In a two-party electoral system, the winning candidates almost always receive majority of votes, hence the winners have clear and strong mandate from the people. But the advent of multi-party system, such as in the Philippines, eroded the dominance of majority votes and gave rise to plurality of votes.

Take for example the Vice-Mayoral election results in Caloocan in 2013. The five candidates and their respective votes were: Asistio (27%), Varela (25%), Almeda (21%), Malonzo (16%), and Yu (1%) – 10% was cast either blank or invalid. Let us remove the names in that election and assume that the winner was a reelectionist with prior conviction of administrative misconduct. Was his reelection an expression of condonation by the people of his misconduct? No, definitely not. Although it may be assumed that 27% of the electorate may have pardoned him by voting for his reelection, it may be assumed also that 63% have not, and the sentiment of 10% was unknown.

Instead of assuming that the people condoned his misconduct, the opposite may be assumed from the election results whereby a majority of 63% of the electorate rejected him and considered him unfit for office by not reelecting him. This is a major flaw of the condonation doctrine – it is rooted on a false assumption that cannot be used as a basis of law.

Clearly, winning an election and condoning misconduct are two separate and distinct acts that cannot be inferred from each other. It is for this reason why the condonation doctrine is invalid in political jurisdictions with strong multi-party electoral system where candidates typically win by plurality of votes, and not necessarily by majority of votes.

In closing, it is high time for the Supreme Court to revisit its decision in G.R. L-11959, and to declare the condonation doctrine unconstitutional. The Supreme Court may just have the rare opportunity to do the right thing in the current case of Ombudsman versus Court of Appeals/Binay.

I did not find any. Typically a justice’s individual opinion is published if there is an affirming opinion but is based on a different legal philosophy, or if there is a dissenting opinion. So, I’m presuming the court decision was unanimous and the justices all agreed on the underlying theory. You can read the decision here:

Thanks a lot Yvonne. If it was unanimous then the law profession is standing on air.

After reading the ruling I believe that the SC and the Appeals Court over reached their powers.

The cited case was very clear:

“this is especially true where the constitution provides that the penalty in proceedings for removal shall not extend beyond the removal from office, and disqualification from holding office for the term for which the officer was elected or appointed.”

They should have bounded this ruling.

One the most important part is “the penalty in proceedings for removal shall not extend beyond the removal from office, and disqualification from holding office”.

Jun-jun Binay’s case is possibly plunder this is a case of nag bubulag bulagan ang judge. And they wonder why the ranks of people losing respect for the courts is swelling.

Times like this reminds me of why I never wanted to be a lawyer in the Philippines and instead became an engineer.

I believe the Binay case/s is both administrative and criminal. The one heard by the Supreme Court in Baguio recently, and is still ongoing, where the Binay camp is invoking the condonation doctrine, pertains to the administrative aspect of the case.

The condonation doctrine, as it currently stands in our jurisprudence, applies only to administrative misconduct.

A question of qualification is not within the purview of administrative misconduct.

But I think there is a Supreme Court ruling (I have it on my file somewhere) where the SC refused to seat a winning candidate in a local election on the ground that he was disqualified for the position to begin with, and the action of disallowing him to assume the elective office was not a violation of the will of the people because of his disqualification.

1. The scenario you cite is one where the winning candidate is not yet seated. In my scenario, the winning candidate is already seated and serving.

1.1. I do recall the case of a governor, a nephew of Erap, being unseated for overspending on his campaign.

2. However, we are not talking of a mere mayorship nor of a governorship. We are talking of the presidency with its awesome powers. While the branches of government are supposed to be co-equal, we know that such is not the case. The Executive is primus inter pares.

3. I can imagine two extended scenarios.

4. Scenario A. In this case, Grace has been proclaimed, been sworn, and is serving.

5. Scenario B. In this case, Grace has won but has not been sworn in yet.

5.1. I imagine UNA’s lawyers will seek for a TRO for Grace not to be sworn in. If the TRO is granted, who serves as President?

5.1.1. Is it the runner-up in the presidential elections? (Binay? Heaven forbid.)
5.1.2. Is it the elected vice-president? (Escudero? Heaven forbid.)
5.1.3. Is it the government of the day? (PNoy? Heaven grant.)

6. I favor options 4.1 and 5.1.3.

6.1. Imagine: Grace can write a new constitution that will eliminate all the defects of the Cory Constitution.

6.2. Imagine: PNoy serving a few more months — years? — before the dust settles.

7. The scary thing — or delightful thing depending on your excitability level — is that these scenarios are probable.

circa 02jun 2016 00earlymorning, (for reasons known only to his lieyers, a first in finas jurisdisprudence) at the sandiganbayan during a hearing of newly sworn in P-vnay .
sandiganbayan presiding justhief: how do ye plead mr. P-vnay?
p-vnay: GUILTY…your disHonors…on the charges as enumerated on the charge shit.
sandigan bayan en banc: we, justhieves of this dishnorable court, therefore, find you guilty
on all the charges. for your humility and honesty to accept your misdeeds and also based on the principle of condonation you can assure this dishonorable court that the rule of law will prevail. sentencing to follow 30 days from today. dishonorable court adjourned (what about that for QUICK AND SPEEDY JUSTIIS)

immediately following the hearing at the hall of justiis, the new president holds a press conference and declares:
i, pres jokjok vnay, by the powers vested in me by the constitution of the republic, do hereby issues executive order 1-06022015 that is i, jokjok vnay, grant full pardon to me and my co-accused ely vnay, jr jok jok vnay, gery l and of course vm mercado. order is effective immediately…after issuing the eo, p-vnay leaves with his entourage, leaving his spox to say to press: ayan po nakita na ninyo, that in this administration justiis applies to all. it is an example of speedy justiis, with compassion and understanding.

meanwhile at the senate blue ribbon committee hearing …senatongs are listening to a resource person (p-vnay justiis sexytary appointee) arguing why p-vnay should not be investigated in aid of legislation.
doj sexytary: your honors, we do not need to waste time on this. obe na po eto. overtaken by events na po. p-vnay has pleaded guilty, the sandigan decided he is guilty…principle na po ng double jeopardy yan, besides, may migating admisions pa at condonation because he was elected by the people, kaya his sins are forgiven. ah, your honors, my sources just relayed to me that the president just gave full pardon to the guilties. in addition, your honors, to continue my chain of thought, the republic has already many good and well intended laws (for every utot there is a law ), all we need is good and strict enforcement of the law, hindi po enforcement so the enforcers can do more kotongs. we need to enforce the laws so the guilty will not have to become repeat or habitual offender because he can get away with it by the power of the sovereign mullah. your honors, the reality is our laws are enforced with enthusiasm during the first 90 days of effectivity…then it is forgotten…only to be revived if it is kotongable…i swear that is the truth and nothing but the truth, so God help us all. thank you, your honors, for the invite.
one philosopher says ‘a house is doomed to fall if any one of its pillars is not up right’. are the
three pillars of our government up right? what do yo all say on that….law it seems are made to benefit the privilege, executed by the privilege and interpreted by the privilege to benefit the privilege. kawawang bata kang underprivilege, enforced to you underprivilege the full force of the law and without delay, TRO or technicality because the sovereign mullah is not by your side!!! laugh if you like it …and say no to binay, urge duterte to run (if not say yes to mar for p and grezpo for vp). gude2yall

Ah, my, juan, not since Mark Twain sent Huck Finn down the Mississippi have I read such rich language used to convey intertwined humor and tragedy and meaning, line after line. Thank you for honoring the blog with a fine piece of original literature. I have no further comment, because you said it all. Thanks. gude2U2.

That is exactly one of the arguments of my article why the condonation doctrine is flawed: if reelection were to be viewed as a condonation or pardon of an administrative misconduct, then it should follow that the failure of the elective official to get reelected were a statement of condemnation or judgment of guilt of his misconduct. Good point.

In the Mayor Arturo Pascual vs. The Provincial Board of Nueva Ecija case, everybody knows who was bought. Where the judiciary is corrupt how can we ever rely on precedence.

I appreciate Joe taking us through the legal jungle although I’m afraid I got lost. It’s too deep for me. What does a reasonable man make of this? Condonation principle is pure nonsense, it’s the height of absurdity.

Another thing I noted is that the country has immobilised itself in legal quagmire. It seems that you need legislation to make this condonation principle unconstitutional. I simply cannot comprehend this. In UK, where precedent laws are no longer appropriate, all it needs is for this to be argued away in a new case and hey presto, a new precedent is established.

Bo Chanco in his recent article (was it the Star?) talking about the demise of Philippines education compared to other S.E.Asian countries, especially Vietnam bemoan that one of the problems of Philippines is we have too many lawyers instead of Engineers and other professionals. Could’nt agree with him more.

I think they should spend less time on annulments (grant no-fault divorce) and less time on notarizations and more time defending people who are harmed by business practices and government negligence. There are a lot of attorneys in my home town, but as near as I can tell, they don’t do much but shuffle paper.

There is an argument between the lady attorney of Binay and the Chief Justice that the SC has to grant the condonation doctrine to his client because it’s the present jurisprudence prevailing at the present time and the SC is bound to follow it vis a vis Binay Jr’s case.

Now, if that is true, then Binay Jr’s suspension is not valid and he walks free because of the condonation doctrine?

You have a point there. When Binay Jr. was reelected, people didn’t yet know about the overpricing, and even if they reelected him into office in 2013, condonation doesn’t count because he was not yet convicted. What the Ombudsman is doing is just meting him a preventive suspension of 6 months so that further evidence can easily be found….

The Ombudsman has made it clear that there are two types of suspension orders it can issue – punitive and preventive suspensions. It only issued a preventive suspension order, not a punitive suspension, precisely because Binay is not found guilty yet of administrative misconduct. This is one of the main arguments of the Ombudsman. It is for this reason that the condonation doctrine does not apply to Binay.

What this means, prosecution of The Binay Crime Family is moot and waste of time and energy. Sereno knows this. But she answers to the people’s clamor to hang ’em high high noon for a few dollars more.

The best Sereno should do is go thru the moro-moro then hand down revision and outdate this condonation beast of principle and moving forward no more condonation.

If Sereno outdates Condonation Principle, IT SHOULD APPLY TO TRILLANES, TOO !!! AND EVERYBODY ELSE not selectively !!!

This is what we do here in the U.S. whose laws are plagiarized by Filipinos.

What are the differences between The Binays and above?
1. They happen to be in Makati
2. It is easier for U.P. journalism graduates to poke fun at The Binays because they do not need to fly to the provinces to make stories and interviews.
3. Makati is accessible compared to the dynasties and crooks in the provinces

What is common of all of the above?
They are all colored people. The Colonized. Brown skin pigsnout Filipinos.

What is missing in all of the above?
The COLONIZERS! THE MESTIZO CLASS! They cannot be in the above! They are honest! They are the movers and shakers of the Philippines. They are not corrupt! Filipinos love to point out colored Filipinos are what they because of colonial mentality! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! If they had COLONIAL MENTALITY they would have been HONEST LIKE THE MESTIZO CLASS AND THE COLONIZERS.

They go to America to surrendeer and apply for re-colonization. They are honest there. Because they are colonized.

The most prominent personality in Philippine History was TRAITOR, MURDERER GENERAL EMILIO AGUINALDO !!!!

He sold the Philippines and the Filipinos to Spain for a few dollars more on December 14, 1897. Went to vacation in Hong-Kong. Fetched by Dewey because Americans did not want to do with Filipinos. He came back. Six weeks after the Battle of Manila he declared Independence on June 12 1898!!!

July 4th 1946 American gave Filipinos Indepdence. The nationalist in early 1960s decided to move Independence to June 12. Since Emilio Aguinaldo was known to surrender the Philippines to Spain they changed the history to make June 12 legitimately declared not by a murderer and traitor.

They made it appear that Emilio Aguinaldo did a fire sale of the Philippines to Spain was to use the proceeds to buy arms to the rebels.

To this day, I do not believe that story. DO YOU? For one year and a half in Hong-Kong there was no proof arms funneled to Philippine Rebels. Well, Filipinos are fond of witness accounts, tweaking history books and affidavits.

So, there you are folks !!!

GENERAL EMILIO AGUINALDO IS CONDONED. I DO NOT! Philippines to this day is still COLONIZED BY HONEST MESTIZO CLASS !!!

COLONIAL MENTALITY IS NOT BAD IDEA AT ALL. COLONIAL MENTALITY IS ABOUT HONESTY. THE MESTIZO CLASS NEVER BEEN DRAGGED TO COURT !!! Even Condoned Trillanes did not have the guts to bring The Ayalas to the Senate and rediculed.

What is Unique about Court of Appeals vs Ombudsman is SERENO HAS ALREADY PREJUDGED THE CASE !!! And these folks are going to Supreme Court who has already pre-judged it. In fact,l Sereno without Constitutional Convention will strike down Aguinaldo Doctrine. Aguinaldo Doctrine is not a gray area in the Constitution. It is in the Constitution and it is absolute.

Right in the middle of court case against Hated Binay someone tweaked the constitution.

Well, Filipinos are fond of doing it. Right in the middle of it. Just like that building towering over Jose Rizal Monument. Almost done. Almost finished. Then they say STOP !!!!! They ordered it to STOP! Just like any other government projects. They won the bidding. Half-way thru the construction they order it to STOP !!!!! Because the bidding was rigged !!!

TRULY FILIPINO !!!! EVEN HISTORY HALF-WAY THRU THEY CHANGE IT !!! FROM JULY 4TH TO JUNE 12 AND CHANGED THE HISTORY BOOK HALF-WAY.

someone forgot mang luis famous words “i rather see the philippines run by filipinos like hell than run like heaven by americans”; for that we name a city after him and we gain independence from sam…and how very true is philippine politics is like hell.
ah now it get it, crook politicians run not only to avail of the cash of the nation for their personal use but also to ask for condonation. TROs, condonation, et al for Sale …contact justhief cora ap.

that’s what happens when the Justices of the Supreme Court just copy American jurisprudence. Retired Associate Justice Isagani Cruz always have reservations on this practice that its just plain laziness not to have an original opinion on a certain case and just base a decision on American jurisprudence.

condonation should be applied only to political crimes just like what happened to Aguinaldo and Enrile. here its obvious that the people don’t want them incarcerated for rebellion so they voted them into office, they didn’t commit crimes against the people but their crimes was against the people in power.

I beg to disagree. Condonation should not be applied at all to all crimes, great and small, political or not.

Political crimes like what Enrile did in 1989 coup did more harm to the Philippines than good. It plunged us again into financial abyss. Investors went away in a huff and the Philippine economy slumped rock bottom again…

What is more ridiculous in the Condonation Doctrine (applying only to administrative cases) is that it automatically exculpates the respondent official once the case drags on beyond the term when he committed the act. Meaning, even if you file the case against the erring public official within the term that he committed the administrative wrongdoing, the case will still be dismissed automatically (in spite of the damning evidence presented) by the graft investigators if the case is decided after the said term. So, all the respondent has to do is to delay the final disposition of the case and the graft investigators are not at all unwilling accomplices in this strategy. Nakakainis at nakakawalang-gana.

It is outside the scope of the condonation doctrine, but look at what happens with Roxas’ electoral protest against Binay. Binay’s term is going to be over next year but the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) has yet to resolve the Roxas protest. So all a politician has to do is to keep on pushing out or postponing the hearings until the term of the contested position expires.

Never in American Jurisprudence rules are changed in the middle of unwinnable litigation. In Laos. In Myanmar. Mongolia. Even in Pyongyang.

NEVER. EVER. ONLY IN THE PHILIPPINES !!!

Filipinos starts tweaking laws if it becomes unwinnable. Even in boxing! They teased Mayweather. They called him names. “N” words to the Nth. Coward. They know Mayweather prance, dance around a ring of roses. When Mayweather accepted the challenged. Manny Lost. Now, the Filipinos are wanting World Boxing Federation and Nevada Sports Commission to invalidate Mayweather win because he ran, prance and dance.

If they cannot win an argument, they ask if they have taken their medication. Call them names like bading, bakla, retard, etcetera … they even drag your long dead Lolos and Lolas.

THAT IS WHY, Filipinos prefer to elect presidents who are not taking medication, meaning, not brilliant people. Because brilliant people are bading, bakla, retard ….

WEIRD FILIPINOS AIN’T IT? “FLIP” as Filipino derogatory word is apt and appropriate. Because what is right abroad is wrong. What is wrong in the Philippines is right!!! TOTALLY FLIPPING PINOYS.

Today Filipinos are celebrating. Because there are 20 Filipinos words are added to Oxford Dictionary. Of course, they did not celebrate and got mad when Oxford added “Filipina” in their dictionary. And the definition is not something to be proud of.

If the preventive suspension (as ordered by the Ombudsman) of Junjun Binay is legal/constitutional and within the powers of that office to do, why can’t the SC reprimand the CA for interfering / meddling in the Ombudsman’s duties? Why is the emasculation of the Ombudsman being allowed by the SC? How can we continue our fight for graft and corruption by our government officials if the Ombudsman can be thwarted just like that by the CA?

As it is, the very purpose of the preventive suspension (to preserve the evidences and to avoid abuse of power / pressuring possible witnesses or resources) is totally defeated. Junjun is still there, most probably raking more campaign funds for his father. The Vice Mayor, if allowed to sit as Mayor for at least six months, could have cancelled those sweet contracts on security, insurance and food companies that corner most of Makati offices and/or done more to help the Ombudsman in her investigations.

Hopefully, this issue will be resolved by the SC soon especially with another looming case against Binay this time on the alleged overpricing of a Makati school building. Unless the SC decides soon, we might see a reprise of the of the first act on the Makati parking building.

Under the Condonation doctrine there is an implied admission that there indeed was a commission of wrongdoing. There is an implied acknowledgement of guilt on the part of the person invoking the doctrine for his defense.

In mayor Junjun’s case, he is in fact admitting truthfulness in committing wrongdoing that requires condonation or forgiveness by the voters that elected him to office which he is now putting up as a defense to defeat the action of the court.

Very clear, the mayor is guilty.

On the part of the Supreme Court, if it’s really dead serious in not touching the doctrine for purposes of disregarding it by making an opposite opinion it should, at least, change the title of the doctrine under this jurisdiction to really give real and true meaning to it. I suggest we call it as what it is.

A = Power of the President to condone/pardon criminal and administrative misconduct upon final conviction; B = Strong provision and spirit of 1987 Constitution against graft and corruption; C = the orderly succession of office from, say, Mayor to Vice Mayor; D = national view versus parochial or local electoral view; E = Multi-party system wherein a win has a very high probability of being through plurality rather than majority;

In the universe of criminal and administrative misconduct of an elective official, these are the mutually exclusive groups: C1 = criminal misconduct with final conviction; C2 = administrative misconduct with final conviction; C3 = criminal or administrative misconduct without final conviction.

Here now is my comment:

If we go by the spirit of A, B, C, D and E above, I am persuaded by your essay that the SC should revisit and throw away this Condonation Principle which was applied in the Pascual case — it seems (this is my reading of your notes) — in the mistaken view that the Pres power does not cover administrative misconduct, but which the SC later decided is covered under the President’s power in a later case it decided. With such later decision of the SC, more reason to throw this concept out in the context of A, B, C, D, and E.

But even GRANTING that the SC maintains the Condonation Principle for administrative conduct through the electoral process (a clear redundancy in view of Pres power for both criminal and admin misconduct sustained by the SC), it should be based on administrative case with FINAL CONVICTION, group C2 above, and not on C3 = criminal or administrative misconduct WITHOUT FINAL CONVICTION.

If such were the decision of the SC, it will throw out the case of Mayor Binay because in his case there was/is no FINAL CONVICTION yet. Correct?

Thanks @NHerrera for reading. It is comforting to read positive response on the article from Rene-Ipil, Leona, and others, at Raissa’s blogsite – it makes my effort on researching this topic worthwhile.

You might find it of interest that the original condonation doctrine had its roots on family law and was widely applied on cases of divorce. It was then held that when a spouse committed infidelity and continue to live with one’s marital partner as if the infidelity did not occur, it was then considered a personal condonation of that wrongful act.

Subsequently, the condonation doctrine found its application extended to many facets in our lives, such as, for example, when an institution, or a person, continue to grant loans to a debtor who cannot pay his loans in a timely manner, then the continuing action of granting him loans becomes a condonation of his wrongful behavior.

And ultimately, the condonation doctrine also found its way into our political landscape.

*******
Another barrier of discrimination has fallen. The secular state has led the way against one of the pathologies of religion.

***

Speaking of religion, the condonation doctrine may be linked to the sacrament of confession. As in the case of Napoles and that Quiapo monsignor, your sins will be condoned if you confess… and can donate.

The following from “A law dictionary for the use of students and the legal profession” by Archibald Brown:

“CONDONATION. A technical term, formerly used in the Ecclesiastical Courts, and from them transferred to the Court for Divorce and Matrimonial Causes, to signify forgiving by a husband or wife of a breach, on the part of the other, of his or her marital duties.”

There is a difference though. With condonation in marriage: “a subsequent repetition of the crime revives the former offense, and nullifies the intermediate act of condonation by the injured party”.

With religion, yours sins are serially condoned if you serially confess… and especially if you serially donate.
*****

Hooooray !!!!! LGBT are peaceful people !!! LGBTs in the Philippines are fully employed or self-employed. They do not harm anyone !!! Fiestas are not fiestas without LGBTs performing arts and comedies.

BASED ON MY OBSERVATION, Filipinos are way ahead in LGBT curve !!! We are more tolerant !!!

“I’m trying to figure out this Binay strategy. Attack good people and play the victim. That SELLS in the far reaches of the land?” – Notes from the Editor JOEAM

“Attack-and-Play-Victim” is futile without the help of his Family’s Alma Mater. Philippine Press makes or break this country. Majority of the Filipinos who have no access to internet and newspapers rely on blocktime radio broadcasters

SWS and FALSE ASIA are playing Filipinos brain. One day it goes up. Some days it goes down. DOES THIS MEAN FILIPINOS ARE WISHY WASHY FLIP-FLOPPERS? Or, Filipinos responses is indexed to the Dow Jones Industrial Index?

It seems Filipinos cannot are standing on shakey ground.

SWS and FALSE ASIA better get their acts together. They are from University of the Philippines, of course !!!!

Interesting that you would say that. I’ve had a blog bouncing around in my mind that would be headlined something like “Are we crazy? Talking to ourselves like this?”

I tend to agree that we are a closed community and the challenge is how to reach across the great divide and talk to people who for sure don’t read this blog. And to do it is such a way that they will actually listen.

I think the Condonation Doctrine is more of an extraconstitutional aberration than unconstitutional. No such thing as condonation in the Constitution. There is pardon but it’s authority is clearly lodge in the office of the Chief Executive. And pardon requires conviction by final judgement. The precedent case cited, Mayor Arturo Pascual vs. The Provincial Board of Nueva Ecija, is an act of forgiveness rather than pardon.

I think what should be ask is if whether or not the doctrine is applicable in mayor Junjun’s case. Given the nature of the doctrine and the precedent case where it was based, it looks like it is but the underlying effect of such application implies guilt of wrongdoing on the part of the mayor. 😶

History will record President Obama as one of the most presidential leaders in the American books, articulate, passionate, diplomatic and willing to sacrifice his popularity to get the nation to move. If he were white, he’d be held up along side Lincoln, which is a statement that is tragic in the rendering of it. But history reflected back 20 years or so may get him where he deserves to be.

CONDONE = to forgive someone for an offence and to allow (something that is considered wrong) to continue.
PARDON = to forgive someone for an offence and to release the person form penalty or punishment.

Condonation reeks of impunity. I cannot understand why it should have ever been allowed to creep into the law of the land.

In a monarchy there is a titular head of state, the king/queen/emperor/emir/sultan. In parlamentary republics and semi-presidential republics (France), the prime minister heads the executive and the president is the titular head. Although titular heads are ceremonial figures and don’t hold much power, the right to pardon is their perogative. Pardon is an act of mercy (not to condon criminal offences) and performed by the titular head, thus taking it out of the troubling realm of politics.

My anger suppression is in full-service mode. I type an angry rant in the Tweet box, then cancel it. And again. And again. They are all aimed at VP Binay, who strikes me as one of the most despicable creatures to inhabit the earth. The nouns and adjectives just flow out, unkind descriptions of his acts and his character.

Who are these people who are satisfied with this man? Who work with him? Who march for him?

If I don’t have this strange reaction to heat and sunlight, no one can stop me from joining them…as it is, I can only act by commenting and posting in FB. I flooded my account with so many posts, unmindful of my colleagues’ comments – politics again.?.it’s too boring…I was so frustrated I reacted quite negatively to MRP and to another commenter here. I took a break from posting at raissa’s…caliphman even uttered that ultimate swearing in our language (p,,,t. nang…mo)…so much focus on egos while Binay is on a seeming rampage…

We do what we can do, eh? I think dealing with the egos is like learning to run for long distances. The more you train, the easier it is to not take them seriously. Then, I think one has the upper hand. Their goal, after all, is to stir up emotions. Deny them that and they lose. I’m still in training, but I’m much better at resisting the taunts than a few months ago. The sad part is how they are trashing up Raissa’s blog. If senators and other government people read the blog, they will soon stop. Rather like I have stopped reading Inquirer comment threads. They are too much ego. One way talking all the time. No dialogue.

Isn’t it another example of being in charge too long? Power corrupts. 2 terms should be 2 terms, no partners, no children to lend their ID. I tend to believe that all Binay did as a young lawyer was remarkable and as a fresh mayor or as a new president of the Boy Scout. But “growing up”, seeing what happens around you, being confronted with so many opportunities, one must be a saint to resist. With alcoholic tendencies in a liquor store, it all starts one day with one glass too many, as an alcoholic you lose one friend at a time but some will remain loyal to the end (ignore the other alcoholics joining the party, smelling booze for all).

The headline says revenue, so I presume that is pre-expense, and would put it on a comparable plane to remittances. And the tenor is that there is still huge upside potential. That is most encouraging, and goes to the “Must Read” section in the right column. As long as Philippine labor costs are markedly below that of the “service nations”, and English is the language of service, the Philippines can compete. Thanks for the good news.

I would like to know more about the portion of the condonation doctrine that states an exception…if I remember it right, it goes like this…..except when an official succeeds himself. When I came across it, i thought, ok it means someone else got elected for that same position, discovered the administrative shenanigans made by his predessor, the omdsman filed a case, the former official was proven guilty with finality, in the meantime he became a candidate and defeated the incumbent…the people condoned his administrative lapses.

First of all, it makes little sense to rate the performance of a vice president as vice president, given that the function of this position is largely that of a spare tire. In VP Binay’s case, it would make more sense to assess him in his role as presidential adviser on overseas Filipino workers’ affairs or as chair of the Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council (HUDCC). In this regard, it might be worth probing, for instance, how much the public knows of Binay’s duties as HUDCC chair. My guess is: not much. Randy David

Trackbacks

[…] was first introduced by the Supreme Court itself into our jurisprudence in the case of then Mayor Arturo Pascual vs. The Provincial Board of Nueva Ecija, G.R. L-11959, in 1959. It stated that a reelected public official cannot be removed from his […]

Search

Search for:

Notes from the Editor

This blog is a collaboration by people interested in the well-being of the Philippines. It is a place to think and discuss, to teach and learn.

The Society of Honor is published via Word Press hosting in the United States. Contributors reside in the Philippines, US and Canada, Australia, Singapore, and Europe. The blog is not accredited by any government or non-government entity, is not a member of any association or group, and is generally not an originator of news. The blog is not an advocacy of any particular cause. It is a clearing house for knowledge and insights.

Please read the ‘Policy and Terms’ tab for further information.

Upcoming Blogs

As published

Follow Blog via Email

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.